[Vision2020] The death penalty....a deterent!!!!!

[Tony]

Joe, you ask Kai, what is the act that is so heinous?  The killing of 
another person?

The answer is no, it is the UNJUSTIFIED taking of life.  Those being 
executed know damn good and well that it was the unjustified nature of their 
act for which they are being punished.

Why does this simple distinction so consistently elude you?

Best,  -T
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: "Kai Eiselein, editor" <editor at lataheagle.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The death penalty....a deterent?????


> Dear Kai,
>
> I should point out that I don't have a clear opinion on this issue. I'm of 
> two minds.
>
> I certainly do not care much whether Duncan lives or dies, and I agree 
> with you that there are benefits to be gained from his death. When I read 
> back these words, though, my blood run cold.
>
> You write: "our society has decided that some people have committed crimes 
> so heinous that death is the penalty for committing them." What is the act 
> that is so "heinous"? Isn't it the killing of another person? How can 
> putting criminal persons to death convince others that it is wrong to kill 
> another person? Wouldn't it more easily convince them that sometimes it is 
> OK to kill another person?
>
> No disrespect to your views -- in fact, I understand exactly where you are 
> coming from -- but these are the kinds of questions that come to mind when 
> I think of your quote.
>
> Best, Joe
>
> ---- "Kai Eiselein wrote:
>
> =============
> The death penalty was never meant to be a deterent. It is a punishment.
> Our society, and every other, has the obligation to decide what to do with
> those that cannot or will not live without harming others. To that end, 
> our
> society has decided that some people have committed crimes so heinous that
> death is the penalty for committing them.
> Here are some irrefutable facts:
> 1: As long as a dangerous offender is alive, he or she has the potential 
> to
> injure or kill others.
> 2: As long as a dangerous offender is alive he or she has a chance of
> getting out of prison, either by escape, mistake or intention.
> 3: A dangerous offender who has been put to death has a zero percent 
> chance
> of recidivism.
> So you think putting a dangerous offender in prison wth three hots and 
> cot,
> medical and dental care, access to a law libray so he or she can file 
> appeal
> after appeal is worse than death? Then think about this.
> What about the victim and or the victim's family who have to relive the
> crime every time that offender is in the news with a new appeal or is 
> filing
> a lawsuit because conditions aren't "humane". He or she wasn't too worried
> about humane treatment of the victim. Opening old wounds of those hurt by
> the offender's actions time and time again isn't humane, in my opinion.
> Cost: I would suspect much of the cost for execuyting a convict comes from
> the myriad appeals that go on for decades, not from the actual
> holding/executing of the convict.
> Is the monetary cost any more relevant than the emotional cost to the 
> victim
> and/or family? I think it is less so.
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>